Do you think the U.S. should stop trying to make every country a democracy?
I think not all countries want to be like the U.S. and they should leave them alone.

Zack

03-12-2005, 09:16 PM

This stuff sucks!

SkunkIt

03-12-2005, 09:27 PM

They're not trying to make other countries "democracies", they're trying to make other countries subservient lapdogs. If those countries were democracies, they'd vote the US out.

If you're going to disagree with the US's foreign policy you could at least not use their terminological propaganda.That's a good point, but i'm saying they're attempting to make every country just like the U.S. and not everyone will like them for that, because not every country wants to be like them. They can't make every country loyal, because even though this is the richest country, it doesn't mean it's the smartest. Besides, if they help one country which another country doesn't like, another country won't like them for helping that country.

blackballs

03-12-2005, 09:35 PM

I can agree with certain people's opinions on making every country a democracy but I think the number one priority should be eliminating terrorist that are a threat to this countrys people.

SkunkIt

03-12-2005, 10:17 PM

They're not trying to make any country just like the US, or even loyal to the US. They're just trying to subjucate every other country.I still don't think it'll work, because no matter what, there are always countries that don't like eachother and if the U.S. has anything to do with them, some other countries still won't like them because of that. I hope it doesn't work.

Mr. Noodles

03-12-2005, 11:10 PM

Do you think the U.S. should stop trying to make every country a democracy?
I think not all countries want to be like the U.S. and they should leave them alone.
I always think that....

SkunkIt

03-13-2005, 10:47 PM

Well, that's what this country tells us they're doing, but most of what they say is bullshit, that's why it's good to hear what people from other countries have to say.

Mota Boy

03-14-2005, 08:49 AM

Do you think the U.S. should stop trying to make every country a democracy? I think not all countries want to be like the U.S. and they should leave them alone.
One of the strongest theories in all of political science is that of the Democratic Peace - the fact that, over the course of hundreds of conflicts spread over thousands of years, no two democracies have ever fought each other. The extrapolation of this idea is that if every country is the world became democratic, there would be no more warfare.

I think that the spread of democracy is beneficial to the US and that we should try to support it whereever possible, just not through the use of force.

SkunkIt

03-14-2005, 03:40 PM

One of the strongest theories in all of political science is that of the Democratic Peace - the fact that, over the course of hundreds of conflicts spread over thousands of years, no two democracies have ever fought each other. The extrapolation of this idea is that if every country is the world became democratic, there would be no more warfare.

I think that the spread of democracy is beneficial to the US and that we should try to support it whereever possible, just not through the use of force.Not all countries want to be a democracy. Some countries are happy just the way they are. Just because the U.S. wants something, doesn't mean it's good for the rest of the world.

Jesus

03-14-2005, 03:56 PM

One of the strongest theories in all of political science is that of the Democratic Peace - the fact that, over the course of hundreds of conflicts spread over thousands of years, no two democracies have ever fought each other. The extrapolation of this idea is that if every country is the world became democratic, there would be no more warfare.

Although I would like to believe Kant's assumption (and the more recent theories of it, like Doyle), I just don't believe it. The theory mostly survives by adjusting interpretations of democracy and war. Like you could (as I do) interpretate for instance the overthrow of Allende or Mossadeq for that matter as an attack of a democratic nation on another one. It probably doesn't pass the war criteria, but it doesn't pass as peace either. Then there is Finland against Britain in WW2.
There are ofcourse the internal conflicts too in democracies (for instance Turkey), but they are ignored in the "(international) democratic peace theory".

It would be nice though. Even if it were true, a world withouth warfare wouldn't mean that everything would be all fair and square (between countries and citizens). Since there is also the political and economical power. Belgium tiny, US big, you bark, we sit and listen.

Leo_ARG

03-14-2005, 05:55 PM

I can't believe I agree with Trip Boy!

Hey...do you REALLY think USA is concerned about the rest of the world?!

That has to be a joke!!

Vera

03-15-2005, 06:26 AM

Then there is Finland against Britain in WW2.

Er. Come again?

See, Finland, next to Russia, yes, hello. Attacked by Russia in WW2 (this war was called Winter War, as is went on from November 1939 to March 1940). Then later attacking Russia in hopes in gaining areas lost in the Winter War, fighting alongside Germany but not technically on their side. That war ended 1944.

If there was anything against Britain in WW2, it might've been near the Swedish border in Lapland, if the British were trying to attack Russia through Finland. In that case it wouldn't have exactly been a war, it would've been defensive and I remember nothing like that, so you're either wrong or just mistake Finland for some other country.

Logically speaking, why the FUCK would we attack Britain?

Jesus

03-15-2005, 07:52 AM

Er. Come again?

See, Finland, next to Russia, yes, hello. Attacked by Russia in WW2 (this war was called Winter War, as is went on from November 1939 to March 1940). Then later attacking Russia in hopes in gaining areas lost in the Winter War, fighting alongside Germany but not technically on their side. That war ended 1944.

If there was anything against Britain in WW2, it might've been near the Swedish border in Lapland, if the British were trying to attack Russia through Finland. In that case it wouldn't have exactly been a war, it would've been defensive and I remember nothing like that, so you're either wrong or just mistake Finland for some other country.

Logically speaking, why the FUCK would we attack Britain?

You (as in Finland) didn't (wouldn't make much sense either), Britain did declare war on you peeps though (At some point in 1941) . Although not much happened, the only "casulaties" caused by Britain were before the declaration anyway IIRC.
Which would pass the "democracies fought each other" test, but wouldn't pass the war on each other test.

So I should have phrased it probably as the "whole" Britain-Finland thing.

Vera

03-15-2005, 08:00 AM

Where did the troops fight, then?

Mota Boy

03-15-2005, 08:12 AM

Not all countries want to be a democracy. Some countries are happy just the way they are. Just because the U.S. wants something, doesn't mean it's good for the rest of the world.
...and just because the rest of the world wants something, it doesn't mean that it's good for the U.S. All countries look out for their own interests first, we just have greater resources to enfore ours. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying that this is how the global system works. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

Also, if you read what I wrote, I said that we should support democracy, not create it. In places such as the Ukraine and Indonesia, large countries which both held important elections last year, the U.S. should do the utmost to see that democratic practices are upheld. Likewise, we should also put pressure on Russia to prevent its backsliding into autocracy and work to foster a middle class in China. These are just some of the most prominent examples.

And Jesus, I'm not saying that we'll acheive utopia through democracy, but given that wars killed over a hundred million people in the past century, and autocracies (Germany, Russia, China, etc.) killed another hundred million plus, I think that democracy could work to erase some of the greatest horrors of our time (and also could be beneficial to the global economy).

I don't equate insurrections with warfare. And also, from another perspective, the Allende shenanigans could be seen as part of a greater, ongoing war against autocratic Russia, though that's an admittedly weak argument. The theory doesn't need too much adjusting, as I've seen it. If you can provide a solid instance of warfare I'd like to see it, but the only ones you've given are internal conflicts with foreign aid.

Jesus

03-15-2005, 08:12 AM

Where did the troops fight, then?

British airplane bombing (so no where)

*fires up the old google machine*

Petsamo

Vera

03-15-2005, 08:26 AM

It was mostly German military in the area around that time.

Also, funny that absolutely no Finnish sources mention it. So I guess it'd be called "Britain against Finland in WW2" since we didn't attack them and yeah, not much of a fight.

Jesus

03-15-2005, 08:37 AM

And Jesus, I'm not saying that we'll acheive utopia through democracy, but given that wars killed over a hundred million people in the past century, and autocracies (Germany, Russia, China, etc.) killed another hundred million plus, I think that democracy could work to erase some of the greatest horrors of our time (and also could be beneficial to the global economy).

I don't equate insurrections with warfare. And also, from another perspective, the Allende shenanigans could be seen as part of a greater, ongoing war against autocratic Russia, though that's an admittedly weak argument. The theory doesn't need too much adjusting, as I've seen it. If you can provide a solid instance of warfare I'd like to see it, but the only ones you've given are internal conflicts with foreign aid.

I can't give any instance of solid warfare since there aren't any. I could be an ass and say the war of 1812 (peace signed in Ghent btw yay), but that wouldn't do justice to "modern democracy". I can only hope it stays like that.
No more wars would require some change in the US economy though ;). (RIP Melman)

KappaWing

03-15-2005, 04:02 PM

Think optimistic. America's democracy injections are a good thing. Follow this simple chain of events.

1) America imposes democracy
2) Other countries get mad
3) Other countries band together
4) Other countries nuke US
5) No more Democracy. YAY!!!

Seroiusly, I think America should mind it's own buisness and LET other countries wallow in their own shit. We're just too nice for our own good! :)

Panzerfaust92

03-15-2005, 07:10 PM

Yea, but we're a war-like people. We as Americans are not able to sleep, until we've completely raped the minimally effective military of some other country. As a land, we're only about 220 years old and we've already had 11 major wars. We can't stand it, not to be screwing with somebody.

Italia311

03-15-2005, 09:28 PM

I think these topics are stupid and totaly useless.

SicN Twisted

03-15-2005, 10:07 PM

Mota Boy, seriously, you're too intelligent for this idealistic driven about supporting democracy. The US itself is a corrupt plutocracy, and since the "democracies" we support globally are usually modelled after our ownautocratic regime, I fail to believe they'd be any more legitimate in serving the interests of their people then our system is. The Ukraine is a perfect example - it's no more of a democracy then it was ten years ago, there's simply US backed elections to assure western representation in Ukrainian affairs.

Mota Boy

03-16-2005, 08:21 AM

The Ukraine is a perfect example - it's no more of a democracy then it was ten years ago, there's simply US backed elections to assure western representation in Ukrainian affairs.
Bingo. I'd argue that it's increasingly democratic, but the unstated point in my argument isn't only that democracy is a good thing, but that we, as a democratic nation (even, if you want to argue, in name only) benefit in a world of democratic nations. From a realist perspective, whether or not the Ukraine actually benefitted when we supported democracy there is irrellevant, what's most important is that we won an important victory in our cool relations with Russia. Likewise,we'd be less likely to go to war with a more democratic Russia and China.

Of course, I suppose you have to view America and our system of government as at least better than that of the average third world nation to think that expanding its power is beneficial.

SkunkIt

03-16-2005, 08:15 PM

...and just because the rest of the world wants something, it doesn't mean that it's good for the U.S. All countries look out for their own interests first, we just have greater resources to enfore ours. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying that this is how the global system works. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

Also, if you read what I wrote, I said that we should support democracy, not create it. In places such as the Ukraine and Indonesia, large countries which both held important elections last year, the U.S. should do the utmost to see that democratic practices are upheld. Likewise, we should also put pressure on Russia to prevent its backsliding into autocracy and work to foster a middle class in China. These are just some of the most prominent examples. It doesn't have to be good for the U.S. The U.S. should just leave them alone. Who cares if we have greater resources? It's not how the global system works. It can work many other ways. It's not unrealistic to expect otherwise is not unrealistic.

Why should why make sure democratic practices are upheld? Just because the U.S. likes it? I don't see why we should put pressure on Russia if some people think it's fine. I think we should leave China alone, except for the factory workers who should not be working in those conditions and child laborers, who should not be working.

leo3375

03-16-2005, 08:41 PM

The only time the US should get involved in another country's affairs is if the majority of citizens want help in a major crisis (genocide in Sudan, anyone?).

Unfortunately, the US destroyed a lot in Iraq so I'm torn between tucking our tails between our legs and running while the Iraqis wage their inevitable civil war, or shifting from rooting out resistance to the occupation and instead rebuilding what we destroyed.

SicN Twisted

03-17-2005, 10:56 AM

Mota, the whole in your thinking is that I, and many fellow countrymen, view that our system of government and our obsession with global hegemony is the primary cause of the third world's economic and political problems. It is beneficial to the US to prop up similar regimes, any empire has done that. The Romans are a perfect example of propping up Roman modelled city state throughout Europe. It benefits the US as an economic and political powerhouse, but as an internationalist I'm weary of arguing for what benefits one powerful country. Our "democratic" expansion generally keeps the rest of the world from achieving independence and self determination.

Skate Rat 19

03-18-2005, 07:30 PM

Well its good that were trying to keep world peace and make it better but we have to start here.

KappaWing

03-18-2005, 07:52 PM

Well its good that were trying to keep world peace and make it better but we have to start here.

Starts are worthless unless there are finishes, and there seems to be no end in sight for Mr. Bush. How are we supposed to keep world peace if we cant even keep Iraqi peace?

Skate Rat 19

03-21-2005, 05:32 PM

Iraq would have been liked as much as WW2 but Bush turned down the world when they asked to help out. Think about it, we would've had much less casualties, the world could easily take care of this in barely anytime, the whole middle east would've been getting cleaned up, the US economy wouldn't be totally wrecked, terrorism would almost not exist, the world would've come together, and I'm sure the effort would've gone all over the world.

KappaWing

03-21-2005, 05:33 PM

Iraq would have been liked as much as WW2 but Bush turned down the world when they asked to help out. Think about it, we would've had much less casualties, the world could easily take care of this in barely anytime, the whole middle east would've been getting cleaned up, the US economy wouldn't be totally wrecked, terrorism would almost not exist, the world would've come together, and I'm sure the effort would've gone all over the world.

Incorrect. The world turned down Bush. Bush didn't turn down the world.

Skate Rat 19

03-21-2005, 06:10 PM

They turn down Bush now especially but back then he had a lot more support. Not the whole world, but more than Britain

FuckingHardcoreBitch

03-29-2005, 12:04 PM

the usa don't help other countries even if they try to convince us. Why the fuck should the gov worry about other countries ? It's already a mess at home…the usa just try to be on top of the world. hey, it's the game…

Love Anarchist

04-04-2005, 06:43 AM

U.S. never helped anyone (at least not for free...) They have plenty of interests, they don't want people to live their lives according to their culture, it's a civilization of currency and franchise, so they try to clean out every state they get their filthy hands on... They also are and always were fascists, and their arsenal needs to be renewed every five years, oil needs to be brought to the country to support the way of life and continue to brainwash the people about their superiority, (they needn't bother, I've seen that people are objects without souls) so down with dictators !... They write history and they're playing to win... Nobody can stop them without destroying the world, I wonder what will happen when the non-regenerative resources will wear out, or how much the planet will survive, in any case...